I don't understand it all but I believe the beast is/was A man who existed during 70AD, or will exist at the end. I think the beasts of Revelation is certain individual men who had power over certain countries, like Greece, Rome and so forth. Why would the beast make war with the saints AND OVERCOME THEM if it is our carnal nature? If the beast is our carnal nature why are there more than one of them? These things don't make any sense to me. In verse 18 It refers to THE beast and says 666 is the NUMBER OF A MAN, not men. Verse 8 says "all that dwell upon the earth shall worship HIM"...one individual.

Why would the beast make war with the saints AND OVERCOME THEM if it is our carnal nature?Doesn't Paul talk about the war that was going on within him? I know what I should do but don't, I know what I shouldn't do but do anyway . . .oh what a wretched man I am . ..who can save me from this body of death??? Only the power of the blood of the Lamb can save us from the carnality of ourselves. Without Christ, the beast rules us. "They overcame, by the blood of the Lamb, and the word of their testimony. . ." Overcame what? That's what all these stories beneath the stories have been all about . .. the beast within us rising up against the authority God placed in us. Satan=adversary. My carnality is ALWAYS at emnity (war) with God. It's always in adversity agianst the nature of God.

If the beast is our carnal nature why are there more than one of them?For me, it's like when Jesus would say . ."the kingdom of God is like . . .a mustard seed . . ." and then he'd go someplace else and he'd say "the kingdom of God is like a man who dug up a preceious stone in his field . ." Same kingdom, different manifestation. It's the same with the beast, we see it in different forms, but it's all the same carnal force within us that's being dealt with.In verse 18 It refers to THE beast and says 666 is the NUMBER OF A MANThere are many different parts to the body, but they all make up "one" body. We are all a part of the body of Christ, we all have a carnal nature at war against our authoritive position. I've said this bunches of times and I love the message of it. God is not out to destroy MEN. he's out to destroy the MAN in men. 666 is not the number of "men". It's the number of MAN in men. It's the number of carnal flesh.

all that dwell upon the earth shall worship HIM"...one individual.Ever notice when something of GREAT magnitude happened, it was ALWAYS at an elevated place? Moses received the commandments on a mountain . . .a LOT of things happened with Moses on a mountain. It was on a mountain when the disciples saw the transfiguration of Jesus. It was on a mountain range that the ark came to rest. The Garden of Eden was in an elevated place . . .one river flowed "out" of it and divided into four other rivers. It was in the "upper" room where the spirit was poured out upon all flesh . . .all of these things are pictures of God's nature being connected to "ascended" places. You can't be an earth-dweller if you expect to walk in the spirit realm of Truth.

In this passage you're talking about . . .the "men upon the earth" were not godly people walking in the spirit, they were merely people who were bound in the flesh, the carnal man and they "worshiped" it by giving themselves over to their lusts and desires . . .that can also apply to religious people as well. They were the ones that were deaf, blind and dead in the first place.

I agree with you in that literally speaking . .. it's already been fulfilled.

"Here is wisdom. Let him that has understanding count the NUMBER OF THE BEAST: for it is the NUMBER OF A MAN; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six [666]" (Rev. 13:18).

Is this indeed what the Greek manuscripts of Rev. 13:18 state? No, it is not.

The Greek word used when only man is meant (always excluding woman), is aner. But the Greek word translated "man" in Rev. 13:18 is not aner, but rather the word anthropos, which means "a human being, male or female." Strong's Concordant.

Furthermore, it is not the number of "a" anything. It is just the number of human or of mankind! Even the Revised Standard Version translators saw this and therefore, states, "It's number is six hundred sixty-six." The number of the wild beast is not the number of "a" man, but rather the number of "man" or "mankind."

Logged

Mic 7:8 Thou dost not rejoice over me, O mine enemy, When I have fallen, I have risen, When I sit in darkness Jehovah is a light to me.

I don't understand it all but I believe the beast is/was A man who existed during 70AD, or will exist at the end. I think the beasts of Revelation is certain individual men who had power over certain countries, like Greece, Rome and so forth. Why would the beast make war with the saints AND OVERCOME THEM if it is our carnal nature? If the beast is our carnal nature why are there more than one of them? These things don't make any sense to me. In verse 18 It refers to THE beast and says 666 is the NUMBER OF A MAN, not men. Verse 8 says "all that dwell upon the earth shall worship HIM"...one individual.

I actually think this has been fulfilled already.

CHB

2Jn 1:7 Because, many deceivers, have gone out into the world, they who do not[/b] confess Jesus Christ coming in flesh: This, is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Many deceivers...who do not confess.....THIS= the many, who do not confess....is the antichrist. The antichrist is not just a man, but is man.

Logged

Mic 7:8 Thou dost not rejoice over me, O mine enemy, When I have fallen, I have risen, When I sit in darkness Jehovah is a light to me.

I agree with you in that literally speaking . .. it's already been fulfilled.

I'm a partial preterist, but my problem is, I'm not sure what all's been fulfilled and what's yet to be.

I've been following the Prophecy thread, and had some thoughts. I didn't want to derail that thread, as it's plugging along at a rapid clip from a futurist perspective. So I thought I'd post "out here to the side" in this thread, and if anyone wanted to pursue a little different angle of it they could do so here without interfering with Molly's thread - and if not, they can ignore this one.

So some thoughts; with so many differing views about future fulfillment, at some point I wonder "has some of this already happened"? Do some of these apply to Israel and God's dealings with them in the past? If so, how much? Recently the "figurative/spiritual" aspect has been brought up in the Prophecy thread, and I wondered about member Nathan for instance, who I think sees it from both a spiritual and an already fulfilled perspective. He's sent me a study on Revelation a long time ago that I tried to find and couldn't. In lieu of that, I found the following interesting. Although I think it may have some merit, I'm NOT saying what the author is claiming is "all there is to it", I PERSONALLY believe there's more to be fulfilled. Also, I expect he'll get bashed as a derelict Full Preterist . but even if he were, I just think (at least parts of) the following may be something to consider.

Excerpts from The Beast of Revelation;

"..before we can turn to those passages where the Beast is mentioned, we must deal with some basic issues of interpreting the Revelation. It seems that most people today have not read the first verse of this book, whichwould go along way in helping them interpret it. Take note of verse 1:

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place...."

Notice verse 3:

".... and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near"

We cannot ignore John's use of these words, because they supply us with important information to the interpretation of this book. Whereas, most believers are awaiting the events described in the book of the Revelation to find their fulfillment in the future, John clearly tells us that the prophecies of Revelation would begin to come to pass within a very short period of time of his writing. He dogmatically states that the events of Revelation were "shortly" to take place, and that the time is "near." Both of these words are significant.

In addition, John states, "the other has not yet come" (the seventh), "and when he comes, he must remain a little while." Following Nero came Galba, who reigned less than seven months.

Further Evidence

"And it was given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them...."

(Revelation 13:7)

Nero was not only the sixth emperor of Rome, he was the first to persecute Christians. That persecution began in the middle of November 64 A.D. and continued until June 8, 68 A.D. when Nero committed suicide, a period of 42 months. Take note how this fits with Revelation 13:5, which says:

"And there was given to him a mouth speaking arrogant words and blasphemies; and authority to act for forty-two months was given him."Is this just another coincidence, or is it more evidence from Scripture as to the identity of the Beast?

Furthermore, John prophesied the death that the Beast would die. The Beast not only slays by the sword, but ultimately is to die of a sword wound.Revelation 13:10 tells us:

"If anyone leads into captivity, to captivity he goes; if anyone kills with the sword, with the sword he must be killed."

The fact that Nero killed by the sword is well documented. Paul, for example, is said to have died under Nero by decapitation with a sword. Tertullian credits "Nero's cruel sword" as providing the martyr's blood as seed for the Church. He urges his readers to "Consult your histories; you will there find that Nero was the first who assailed with the imperial sword the Christian sect."

Likewise, history records that Nero took his own life with the sword. Roman historian Suetonius describes Nero's death: "Then with the help of his secretary, Epaphroditus, he stabbed himself in the throat."

It is interesting, from a historical perspective, that Nero was actually referred to as a "beast" by his contemporaries. For instance, the pagan writer Apollinius of Tyana, who lived at the time of Nero, states: "In my travels, which have been wider than ever man yet accomplished, I have seen many wild beasts of Arabia and India; but this beast, that is commonly called a Tyrant, I know not how many heads it has, nor if it be crooked of claw, and armed with horrible fangs.... And of wild beasts you cannot say that they were ever known to eat their own mother, but Nero gorged himself on this diet."

Nero ruthlessly murdered his parents, his brother, his pregnant wife (whom he kicked to death) and other family members. He was a homosexual, who found sexual gratification in watching torture. He enjoyed dressing up as awild beast and raping male and female prisoners. He illuminated his garden parties with the bodies of Christians, covered with pitch and set aflame.

That persecution began in the middle of November 64 A.D. and continued until June 8, 68 A.D. when Nero committed suicide, a period of 42 months. Take note how this fits with Revelation 13:5

That's an interesting quote.

Revelation is often linked to the destruction of the Temple in 70AD

Like always there is disagreement but many scholars date the book of Revelation near 90AD. Revelation looks forward in time; meaning the events will take place after 90AD.So if Revelation is about 63-70AD (7 years) it must have been written before that time.

Logged

1 Timothy 2:3-4 ...God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved...John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

I find all that info about Nero interesting. Yes, the argument is with many saying Rev. is written after 70 AD, some others saying before. Which I'm sure most if not all full preterists argue for before.

1 Timothy 2:3-4 ...God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved...John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

I find all that info about Nero interesting. Yes, the argument is with many saying Rev. is written after 70 AD, some others saying before. Which I'm sure most if not all full preterists argue for before.

Of course one can find 30 people saying post-70 AD and another 30 saying pre-70 AD. This is one guy's opinion and information he shares;

"The bible is it's own best reference for interpretation. Internal evidence -- words found in the book of Revelation, itself, prove it to be pre-AD70 in dating.

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; (Rev. 3:14).

Laodicea was destroyed by a mighty earthquake in 60 B.C. It was hit again in 65 AD.

One source says: " It was destroyed by an earthquake (A.D. 66, or earlier) and rebuilt by Marcus Aurelius. " Strong's Lexicon agrees. Aurelius was not even born until 121 AD, and died in 161 A.D. So how could there have been a church there if it was destroyed by an earthquake in the mid 60's and not rebuilt until decades later?

Also, we see the precise time of Jerusalem's destruction (3.5 years) noted in this book: But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. (Rev 11:2).

All the pieces fit together. Read my studies concerning Jesus' statements about the Jerusalem of His day that correlate with Revelation's references to the harlot. Revelation was not written in 96 AD. It was written before 70 AD." - Mike Blume (I believe a full preterist).

Revelation is happening very close to the day of the LORD. If you know what that is, you will know it hasn't happened yet. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,...--Rev 1

I like information and scriptural possibilities, so no one think I'm coming down hard exclusively in one absolute place or another here. As with many things, although I seek wisdom and understanding, I'm open to the possibility that I just don't know for sure and/or could be shown to be wrong. I like to explore things within the scriptures and knowledge of God, things that may be different than "what I've always thought" or believed. That said, it's interesting about the Lord's Day Molly. I think I know what you're saying, and it just occurs to me if there could be a difference between the Lord's Day and The Day of the Lord/That Day? Barnes Notes on the Bible says this about that particular phrase, The Lord's Day;

"On the Lord's day - The word rendered here as "Lord's" (κυριακῇ kuriakē), occurs only in this place and in 1 Corinthians 11:20, where it is applied to the Lord's supper. It properly means "pertaining to the Lord"; and, so far as this word is concerned, it might mean a day "pertaining to the Lord," in any sense, or for any reason; either because he claimed it as his own, and had set it apart for his own service, or because it was designed to commemorate some important event pertaining to him, or because it was observed in honor of him. It is clear:

(1) That this refers to some day which was distinguished from all other days of the week, and which would be sufficiently designated by the use of this term.

(2) that it was a day which was for some reason regarded as especially a day of the Lord, or especially devoted to him.

(3) it would further appear that this was a day particularly devoted to the Lord Jesus; for:

(a) that is the natural meaning of the word "Lord" as used in the New Testament (compare the notes on Acts 1:24); and

(b) if the Jewish Sabbath were intended to be designated, the word "Sabbath" would have been used.

1And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

--Dan 12

And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

That said, it's interesting about the Lord's Day Molly. I think I know what you're saying, and it just occurs to me if there could be a difference between the Lord's Day and The Day of the Lord/That Day?

I don't think there is a diffrence. If I'm right it refers to Atonement day. It's a fall feast in late September.

Quote

Barnes Notes on the Bible says this about that particular phrase, The Lord's Day;

"On the Lord's day - The word rendered here as "Lord's" (κυριακῇ kuriakē), occurs only in this place and in 1 Corinthians 11:20, where it is applied to the Lord's supper.

Jesus died during a spring feast.

Quote

It properly means "pertaining to the Lord"; and, so far as this word is concerned, it might mean a day "pertaining to the Lord," in any sense, or for any reason; either because he claimed it as his own, and had set it apart for his own service, or because it was designed to commemorate some important event pertaining to him, or because it was observed in honor of him. It is clear:

So according to Barnes "Day of the Lord" = "Last Supper" = a new feast dedicated to Jesus?

I think all of that is wrong.

Logged

1 Timothy 2:3-4 ...God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved...John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

So according to Barnes "Day of the Lord" = "Last Supper" = a new feast dedicated to Jesus?

I think all of that is wrong.

It may be, but I think he's just saying it's a special day set aside for the Lord, similar to the reference in I Cor. about taking communion/the Lord's Supper (not the Last Supper :). He's making a distinction between the Lord's Day and "that great and terrible day of the Lord". I don't know, but I think it's worth considering.

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,a. to finish the transgression, andb. to make an end of sins, andc. to make reconciliation for iniquity, andd. to bring in everlasting righteousness, ande. to seal up the vision and prophecy, andf. to anoint the most Holy.

a] I just have to take a quick look at the front page of any newspaper and I see a lot of transgression.b] See a.c] That could be fullfilled by crucifixion.d] See a. The rightousness hasn't arrive yet.e] That could point to Revelation.f] Jesus was anointed. Sorry for the Trinity reference James but I think Father and not Son is the most Holy.

Also note THY people and city. It's only about Jerusalem and the Jews. I think nobody will be able to convince me that there is really peace in Jerusalem.Jews are still rejecting Jesus.There is no Jewish Temple but a mosque (sp?)

1 Timothy 2:3-4 ...God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved...John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

I set this all up by saying I don't believe everything's happened yet. That's not my point, I'm not saying it has. That's full preterism. I said I'm partial preterist, that I believe some things have happened and some haven't. But I do wonder if we get in a rush sometimes and assume it's all future rather than being able to discern which is which. Personally, I can't always do so. But I think it's interesting to look at possibilities.

I personally believe the Lord is yet to return, the dead in Christ arise, etc. But I also wonder if some things we take as future prophecies (especially OT and parts of Revelation) have either already happened, are at least what happened was a "type" of something that will happen further - for instance, if Nero was a "type" of the anti-Christ, if not "the". Bottom line, I'm not sure anybody really has all the answers to it.

So according to Barnes "Day of the Lord" = "Last Supper" = a new feast dedicated to Jesus?

I think all of that is wrong.

It may be, but I think he's just saying it's a special day set aside for the Lord, similar to the reference in I Cor. about taking communion/the Lord's Supper (not the Last Supper :). He's making a distinction between the Lord's Day and "that great and terrible day of the Lord". I don't know, but I think it's worth considering.

To be honsest it didn't take me long to consider :PThe OT sets patterns. Those patterns become useless if suddenly new stuff is added.I think Last Supper was just a regular Jewish custom that was celebrated by other Jews too.And even if it's a completly new feast I think it's not relevant in connection ot Revelation.

Logged

1 Timothy 2:3-4 ...God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved...John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

I set this all up by saying I don't believe everything's happened yet. That's not my point, I'm not saying it has. That's full preterism. I said I'm partial preterist, that I believe some things have happened and some haven't. But I do wonder if we get in a rush sometimes and assume it's all future rather than being able to discern which is which. Personally, I can't always do so. But I think it's interesting to look at possibilities.

I personally believe the Lord is yet to return, the dead in Christ arise, etc. But I also wonder if some things we take as future prophecies (especially OT and parts of Revelation) have either already happened, are at least what happened was a "type" of something that will happen further - for instance, if Nero was a "type" of the anti-Christ, if not "the". Bottom line, I'm not sure anybody really has all the answers to it.

I don't even rule out some sort of double fulfiment.It's all how things are calculated. I can calculated revelation to happen near 2016, 2026 and.... when Jesus lived.

Your suggestion makes things even more complex.Instead of viewing Revelation, especially the 7 year part, as a compact timeline of events you seem to spread it out over at least 2000 years.I'm not saying that's wrong, but it gets extremely hard to prove anything.Dare I say "useless"? What's the use of prophesy is it's so extremely complex nobody has a clue what it even romotely is about.....?

Logged

1 Timothy 2:3-4 ...God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved...John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

1 Timothy 2:3-4 ...God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved...John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

I'm still wondering if there's a difference between the Lord's Day, when John saw his vision, and the Day of The Lord, when Christ returns, and starts to "wrap things up"...

You didn't like the first guy, let me run these out..these are all from biblios/biblecc, commentary on that verse. Maybe they're all wrong. (they probably all believe in hell, too :o ). So maybe Molly's right and John was transported forwarded "to THAT day". But here's what they say;

The Lord's day - The first day of the week, observed as the Christian Sabbath, because on it Jesus Christ rose from the dead; therefore it was called the Lord's day, and has taken place of the Jewish Sabbath throughout the Christian world. – Clarke's Commentary

He calls it the Lord's day, which Paul calls the first day of the week; 1Co 16:2. Geneva Study BibleOn the Lord's day - On this our Lord rose from the dead: on this the ancients believed he will come to judgment. Wesley's Notes

on the Lord's day-Though forcibly detained from Church communion with the brethren in the sanctuary on the Lord's day, the weekly commemoration of the resurrection, John was holding spiritual communion with them. This is the earliest mention of the term, "the Lord's day." But the consecration of the day to worship, almsgiving, and the Lord's Supper, is implied in Ac 20:7; 1Co 16:2; compare Joh 20:19-26. The name corresponds to "the Lord's Supper," 1Co 11:20 Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

The day and time when he had this vision was the Lord's day, the Christian sabbath, the first day of the week, observed in remembrance of the resurrection of Christ. – Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary